CNN poll: Government’s focus should be on legalizing illegals, not border security

posted at 11:21 am on February 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

No one thinks mass deportation is feasible. Hardly anyone’s suggesting it anymore. The consensus position among alleged “hardliners” these days is simply to nail down measurable improvements in policing for illegal immigration, especially measures like E-Verify aimed at deterring illegals who’ve already made it past the border, as a prerequisite to the eventual legalization that everyone knows is coming. The goal at this point is to prevent future amnesties, not derail the one whose headlights are right in front of us. As such, tacking on deportation to a question like this is like tacking on something to the legalization part about offering illegals citizenship “immediately, no questions asked.” No one’s suggesting that either, but I guarantee you’ll see the numbers for legalization dip if you toss that red herring out there. If anything, the noteworthy bit in the data above is the trendline: There was a sharp turnaround between 2011 and 2012, probably because the contrast between the candidates’ positions in the election that year — Obama de facto legalizing DREAMers by executive rule versus Romney calling for self-deportation of illegals — hardened the issue in partisan terms.

The interesting numbers in the CNN poll don’t come from the dopey deportation question, they come from the follow-up. People were asked whether they support legalizing illegals with a path to citizenship or legalizing them with a permanent bar to citizenship. That’s a red herring too insofar as Boehner’s principles don’t prohibit citizenship for illegals; all they say is that there’ll be no specially created path. Illegals might (and surely will) still be eligible for the citizenship process under existing law. But the question is valuable anyway, I think, because it gives you a glimpse at how the GOP’s big legalization sellout, which is designed to dazzle voters with a show of moderation, will be received once Democrats start demagoing the hell out of it. Result: The public overwhelmingly supports legalization with eventual citizenship, 81/17, and overwhelmingly opposes legalization that prohibits citizenship, 35/62. (Weird footnote: The 18-34 group shows the highest level of support in both questions among age demographics.) If the GOP’s going to embrace amnesty, they’d better swallow hard and start emphasizing that citizenship is in the cards for illegals under their plan, no matter how much that might irritate their base. No sense selling out if you’re not going to get a pat on the head for it from your target audience.

Since we’re talking the GOP and immigration politics, here’s another juicy poll out today. Beltway Republicans have warned border hawks forever that they should emulate Texas Republicans on this issue; both Dubya and Rick Perry have had fabulous electoral success in the state by taking a milder view of immigration reform than the conservative base. If you want to turn the electoral tide nationally among Latino voters, the Texas model is the one to follow. Here’s what Gallup found when they compared Latinos in Texas to Latinos nationwide:

Nationally, Latinos split 51/21 between Democrats and Republicans; in Texas, it’s 46/27, although as you can see, the Texas GOP has gained a few points over the past five years while the national party has actually lost ground slightly. No doubt dour views among Latinos of the national GOP have hurt the Texas state party too. There’s only so much Bush and Perry can do on their own. The Texas numbers would doubtless be higher if the national party’s image improved. But how much higher? The great conundrum in deciding whether to sell out on amnesty in Congress is gauging what sort of increase the GOP can expect over, say, the next 20 years in its share of the Latino vote. What’s their ceiling, realistically? 45 percent? 40? 35? Texas, a state governed by immigration-friendly Republicans for nearly 20 years, is a byword for “economic success” in America at this point — and the GOP still can’t do better than 27 percent among Latinos there? That suggests a low vote-share ceiling, not a high one.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

If you want to turn the electoral tide nationally among Latino voters, the Texas model is the one to follow.

So if we legalize Hispanic illegals, Hispanics will vote Republican? Never will happen.

What specifically is wrong with our current immigration laws except that they are not being enforced? We have a generous immigration system. Far easier than getting citizenship in Mexico if you are an immigrant. And if you are in Mexico illegally, don’t expect to have an easy time ever getting citizenship.

Do we need to try again and hope for different results? As much as we hate to believe it, people coming from Mexico’s squalor are believers in big government. They’re looking, to a large degree, for Uncle Sam to take care of them. And they for some reason don’t vote their beliefs on social issues. Dems have figured it out. Why can’t Repubs?

I read somewhere that when Hispanics pass the $30,000/year income level, they are much more likely to become Republican. I don’t know if that true, but if it is, then the Democrats have an incentive to keep them at low income levels, while the Repubs have the incentive to elevate them. In Texas, the job situation is much better for Hispanics (and everyone) than in places like CA.

Amnesty doesn’t net them any new votes, and democrat margins get wider.

They Republicans go onto TV and say “We must pass minimum wage increases, as well as expand welfare, food stamps, and Section 8 housing or risk losing a larger share of the latino vote. We need to broaden our appeal to latinos, and so we need to expand these government programs that are popular with latinos.”

This is why pandering is never a good idea. It usually never results in more votes, and all it does is advance crap legislation.

If the GOP establishment falls for the amnesty canard they won’t be able to blame the Tea Party for their demise. Once the illegals become citizens and get the right to vote the GOP will cease to exist. There is no way any version of the GOP will be able to pander as well as the Dems. End game.

So you know, when you start a headline with ‘CNN POLL’, I stop reading immediately.

” CNN POLL” is about as credible as, “some folks say…”

Although I’m sure every liberal they polled *did* say the GOP should focus on illegal immigrants. Because it takes the focus off the fact their messiah and his socialized medicine program are complete failures.

Nearly one in four 26-year-old is still living at home and sleeping in the old racecar bed. Unemployment among teens is 21% The Obama administration has yet to answer for a slew of scandals and abuses of power…….

Yeah, giving legal status to a bunch of uninvited foreigners is really at the top of the “to do” list.

Yes they are changing. Does that mean that my right as a citizen to have laws enforced aren’t as important as an illegal immigrant? And if you choose to ignore enforcement of current law, how is it that you and the government ignore inconvenient parts to new immigration law?

What specifically is wrong with our current system, in comparison to Mexico or Canada’s immigration system?

“Become legal residents” is the biggest trap ever. There is no way Dems are going to settle for their potential voting block being “second class citizens” if they pass this. Paying fines and learning English are meaningless bribes.

I work on the border and speak with illegals just about every day. The greatest misconception is that they are coming for “the long haul” and would like to live in the U.S. for an extended period of time. Totally false. The majority cross illegally and pay a hefty amount of money to work in the U.S. for about 3 or 4 years, all the while sending that most of that money home while trying to pay back their crossing fee. The money they spend in the U.S. economy is minimal, at best. The GOP needs to come up with a solution that meets the needs of the U.S. economy, while addressing the fact that most illegals aren’t willing to stay here for a long time anyways. Thoughts?

I’m for legal work status, I just don’t trust the Dem’s too properly enforce it.

Tater Salad on February 7, 2014 at 11:28 AM

I’m for enforcement too. Fine the hell out of any company caught employing illegals. When the jobs dry up the self-deportation will begin. No more “wink wink” when three different people come in with the exact same documentation for the I-9 file. No more, how were we to know the documentation wasn’t real. No more slap on the wrist when illegals are caught.

There are plenty of unemployed Americans (and those here legally) to do the work being performed by illegal aliens.

Depends on how the question was asked.. When I first looked at it. It looked like they wanted illegals to become legal citizens. I do to, but I want them to come the LEGAL WAY.

The second part can be interpreted that you want to stop deporting illegals. In which case, number has gone down of the people who want to stop.

Frankly, I could care less what you do with the illegals here, but I don’t want that even addressed UNTIL strict measures are followed to stop the flow and the government starts fricking following their own laws.

I work on the border and speak with illegals just about every day. The greatest misconception is that they are coming for “the long haul” and would like to live in the U.S. for an extended period of time. Totally false. The majority cross illegally and pay a hefty amount of money to work in the U.S. for about 3 or 4 years, all the while sending that most of that money home while trying to pay back their crossing fee. The money they spend in the U.S. economy is minimal, at best. The GOP needs to come up with a solution that meets the needs of the U.S. economy, while addressing the fact that most illegals aren’t willing to stay here for a long time anyways. Thoughts?

Out.

border hawk on February 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM

This might be true, but the suburb of DFW I grew up in, used to be middle to upper class white when I was a kid, is now pretty much New Mexico City now. It has been completely taken over by hispanics, all of the white people have been driven out, and consists of several Section 8 housing units and all the signs/businesses in the vicinity are in Spanish. I don’t even recognize it anymore. The elementary school I attended is now 80% hispanic and has more ESL students than regular english first students.

Some people may cross to work temporarily, but many others establish themselves here, have kids, and multiply.

They Republicans go onto TV and say “We must pass minimum wage increases, as well as expand welfare, food stamps, and Section 8 housing or risk losing a larger share of the latino vote. We need to broaden our appeal to latinos, and so we need to expand these government programs that are popular with latinos.”

This is why pandering is never a good idea. It usually never results in more votes, and all it does is advance crap legislation.

tcufrog on February 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

This is why I think the GOP doesn’t want to do anything about Obamacare. Obamacare is relatively popular with Hispanics.

But it doesn’t even mean that. Open borders will not win elections for anyone except the Dems. The whole issue isn’t about winning elections. No other nation on earth allows this nonsense to continue.

oldroy on February 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

I think there’s a significant number of Congresscritters (the dumber ones) who really buy into the idea that if we give Hispanics amnesty they will stampede to vote for the GOP, and who think any opposition to amnesty is simple racism.

The position I’m in leads me to believe that they are telling the truth, and the majority of the ones that I speak with have no reason to lie. The fact is, they don’t want to be citizens. They don’t want to assimilate into the American culture. They just want to make money for their family back home. Now obviously, I’m adamantly opposed to illegal immigration and I think these people are criminals when they break our laws, and not just “good people trying to make a better life”. They shouldn’t get a free handout and a step ahead of legal immigrants just because they broke our laws. However, the GOP needs to find a fundamental position on this issue that doesn’t alienate voters that buy the “coming out of the shadows” garbage.

I agree. Enforce the laws and they’ll leave one a at time and on their own.

DanMan on February 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Why do you agree? Why wouldnt it be feasible? Illegals dont exactly make an effort to hide these days. They heckle and talk to the president, they can get law licenses in California or drivers licenses in god knows how many states by now. Whats supposed to be the problem here?

I was trying to find a nation that has open borders besides the USA. Every nation including Canada and Mexico require that one has a job to be able to move there. Does the world expect the USA to be different? Our resources are limited and the world demands we absorb more of their poor? I am for legal immigration but this nation is finished if it doesn’t seize control of its borders. I would also favor that the USA copy Mexico’s immigration policies.

This is allowing the dems to set the agenda, and not the Republican’s.

It is so logical that we secure the borders, the only reason is that the Republican’s have never fought for that.

Whenever they say “protect the borders”, they fall into the trap of details about “hunting” down desperate people, or whatever diversion is thrown at them.

Just stay on topic, and repeat and repeat and repeat…we have to secure the border, it is one of the few items that absolutely the feds must do. Defend our borders, not get into, “keeping poor people out”, that sorting out of people happens at a border that is maintained.

But the Republican’s keep falling for the “poor immigrant” line…it has nothing to do with immigrants, it has to do with upholding our constitution, and providing for the general welfare of the people.

When you get into the survey, it shows, it doesn’t appear to be waited properly, 29Dem-21GOP-48Ind, but also shows sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. So, theoretically, could actually pretty much even

What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration — developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here?

What should be the main focus of the Liberal Media, (such as CNN), in dealing with completely asinine/loaded questions about immigration—should the plan be to point out CNN’s feckless question, or stop the flow of biased liberal reporting and deport all journalist that fit in this category?

I haven’t spoken to any illegals about this issue but I’ve met some who once lived in the US but have since moved back to Mexico. I’ve been told that it is actually easier for some workers to find work in Mexico than here.

One very important factor in the immigration issue which nobody talks about is the birth rate in Mexico is among the lowest in the world. This is important because Mexico will require these workers to maintain the labor population at a certain level. There is a growing incentive for workers to stay put. Mark Steyn talks about this in his book America Alone. He feels that if a border fence is constructed today, future generations will wonder why it was ever built.

Why do you agree? Why wouldnt it be feasible? Illegals dont exactly make an effort to hide these days. They heckle and talk to the president, they can get law licenses in California or drivers licenses in god knows how many states by now. Whats supposed to be the problem here?

Valkyriepundit on February 7, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Logically you cannot mass deport 15 or 20 million people, just do the math on the paperwork, the bureaucracy you would have to create, let alone the legal for the “special” cases.

But not allowing business to hire without proper ID, and make it easy for business to check on SS numbers, etc. That could done easily, if they wanted to.

Then when some jihadist saunters in and blows L.A. or Chicago to smithereens, so be it. As long as we’re able to enlarge the underclass and secure more votes for Democrats, that’s really all that matters.

Sad to say liberalrules is on to something. I just spent 4 days in the Albuquerque area and it was jarring. Regardless of where I traveled in that city the vast majority of houses were behind walls or had door and window bars. I saw more razor wire than barbed wire. About the only walls that did’t have graffiti were the Federal highway bridges. If you do a Crime Map of the city you can’t see the road names it’s so thick with incident reports. It wasn’t nearly this bad when I visited this same city 12 years ago.

I wonder…would Mexico deport me if I went there uninvited and in violation of their laws?

The demographics in this country is changing.

Republicans cannot keep on ignoring it.

10 years ago this poll would have been the exact opposite

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 11:36 AM

So you’re saying they should hasten their demise by legalizing people who, at the moment, aren’t able to vote (in theory)? Just purely in terms of political tactics, that’s stupid. Does anyone really think Republicans would get any credit from the Hispanic community for amnesty? Really?

It doesn’t matter what the polls say…securing the border is not only the right thing to do, it is an absolute that the feds must do, one of the few items outlined by our framers that must be done, defend and secure the borders.

Sad to say liberalrules is on to something. I just spent 4 days in the Albuquerque area and it was jarring. Regardless of where I traveled in that city the vast majority of houses were behind walls or had door and window bars. I saw more razor wire than barbed wire. About the only walls that did’t have graffiti were the Federal highway bridges. If you do a Crime Map of the city you can’t see the road names it’s so thick with incident reports. It wasn’t nearly this bad when I visited this same city 12 years ago.

HatfieldMcCoy on February 7, 2014 at 11:59 AM

I can confirm this, I was in Albuquerque last year when I was driving from DFW to Las Vegas and stayed in ABQ for a night… I was shocked, didn’t even look like America. I know there are some nice parts of ABQ as my uncle lives there but the part I stayed in(by the Airport and University of New Mexico) looked straight out of pictures you see of places like Tijuana or Ciudad Juarez.

Logically you cannot mass deport 15 or 20 million people, just do the math on the paperwork, the bureaucracy you would have to create, let alone the legal for the “special” cases.

But not allowing business to hire without proper ID, and make it easy for business to check on SS numbers, etc. That could done easily, if they wanted to.

right2bright on February 7, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Im not against the latter, but I must disagree on the former. Okay, obviously we wouldnt get them all, but this is true of all sorts of crimes. It usually doesnt prevent us from going after the criminals. And a credible demonstration of determination might go a long way to discourage illegals from coming here to begin with.

Republicans should get serious about this problem and dust off Eisenhowers old plans.

If we are not going to enforce existing immigration law, why bother to create NEW laws?? If we are not going to secure the borders, why bother with an immigration policy in the first place?? In these days of rampant terrorism and wide spread smuggling, it is essential to secure the freakin’ borders and deport ALL illegal aliens, (yes, I called them illegal aliens because that’s what they are), and then and only then can we even consider new policy regarding who is allowed in and who gets the HONOR and PRIVILEGE of applying for citizenship. Anything else is carte blanche amnesty which simply encourages lawlessness. And that is precisely what the Dog Eater wants.

“Become legal residents” is the biggest trap ever. There is no way Dems are going to settle for their potential voting block being “second class citizens” if they pass this. Paying fines and learning English are meaningless bribes.

ncinca on February 7, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Yup. Before the ink can dry on any legal status bill, the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the plight of hard working immigrants being denied their “rights” will begin, complete with the usual accusations of racism and lack of compassion hurled at Republicans.

I’m for enforcement too. Fine the hell out of any company caught employing illegals. When the jobs dry up the self-deportation will begin. No more “wink wink” when three different people come in with the exact same documentation for the I-9 file. No more, how were we to know the documentation wasn’t real. No more slap on the wrist when illegals are caught.

There are plenty of unemployed Americans (and those here legally) to do the work being performed by illegal aliens.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM

This touches on some of the key points that are almost never addressed or mentioned in any discussion about ‘immigration reform’ or the need to deal with nearly 30 years of illegal immigration.

The last amnesty included ‘promises’ from Congress that this would be the last time – that the border would be secured and the immigration laws fully enforced.

But the border was never really secured and we aren’t enforcing the laws that are on the book. Yet within this debacle, we are looking to our government, creators of the EpicClusterFarkNado, to ‘solve’ the healthcare challenges, to now, using pretty much the same flawed approach, ‘solve’ immigration challenges which have their roots in failed security and enforcement?

There can’t even be an intellectually honest discussion about immigration when one side can’t differentiate between those millions who emigrate to the US legally and those who choose not to emigrate legally.

I don’t know where Allah gets that. It’s quite feasable it would just take years to accomplish. Just as it took years for all of them to get here. But in 20 years could you effectuate “mass deportations” – certainly.

Uh, what happened when states like Arizona and Alabama passed their immigration laws in the last couple of years? Self-deportation. Until the Feds stepped in.

E-verify just gives government the right to say who can have a job instead of waiting until the law is broken and then prosecuting those who broke it. You think this gov won’t go IRS style on groups/people they don’t like? All of a sudden many people might become illegal immigrants or ineligible for work.

CNN is not America, and America wants border security. You have to rig a poll to show otherwise, which CNN and the rest of their ilk are quite ready and able to do, because the are not our servants, the are our betters – just ask them.

No one thinks mass deportation is feasible. Hardly anyone’s suggesting it anymore. The consensus position among alleged “hardliners” these days is simply to nail down measurable improvements in policing for illegal immigration, especially measures like E-Verify aimed at deterring illegals who’ve already made it past the border, as a prerequisite to the eventual legalization that everyone knows is coming.

Here’s the step in logic that is constantly jumped. Let’s assume for the minute that deportation is impossible.

Fine. Now, what are the logical reasons that require the U.S. to legalize those here illegally? What are the alleged benefits to the U.S. that outweigh the costs and the incentive it will create for another massive wave in illegals?

See what I did there? I took the assumption that the pro-amnesty crowd throws out and assumed it was true. But, instead of taking the next assumption that pro-amnesty people think flows logically from the first, I point out that it does not.

legalization does not flow logically from not being able to deport. Just because I can’t “round up” all of the illegals already here – that does not automatically result in a compelling argument for why they have to be legalized. Yet amnesty supporters pretend it does.

Now, I don’t agree with the straw-man argument in the first instance – that our choice is a) round them all up and deport them or b) legalize them. That is a false dichotomy.

In reality, if we actually enforced immigration laws – against individuals and businesses, many illegal immigrants would self deport. Many others, over time, would be deported (mind you, not in some “mass roundup” but in the regular course of enforcing the law).

those that remain – what of them? Why does the U.S. owe them legalized status? it doesn’t. They came here knowing the consequences, and they remain here despite the consequences. Thus, they have chosen those consequences. there is no need to legalize them.

Interesting aside – the new meme from the pro-amnesty crowd is that Mexico’s unemployment is so low, and the U.S.’s relatively high, that people are not illegally immigrating to the U.S. any longer and we don’t have to worry about future illegals. While this is an absurd argument, it works just as easily against the pro-amnesty crowd. If that is the case, then simply enforcing immigration law here should see a mass exodus of illegals in search of jobs back in Mexico, shouldn’t it?

There would be no need for the mass deportation of the bulk of these criminals. Simply stop giving them benefits and jobs, and deny them housing and access to emergency rooms, and most will self deport. When others are picked up by the police, they should be summarily shipped to the nearest border and released without regard to nation of origin. When these people realize that the well has run dry, they’ll stop coming here voluntarily. That and a secure border must be priority number one, but with this regime it is tantamount to discrimination, racism, and hate, all rolled into one…

Yep. And you poll here in New Mexico and Texas and Arizona, Hispanics will say they favor enforcement by a long shot. It’s only when you eliminate enforcement and not specify what you mean by reform and then present it as evidence that choosing reform means full on amnesty can you get the result that the media wants.

The real issue here is how long the world will tolerate the political and economic disaster called Mexico. Plenty of natural resources, only 120 million people. Continued failure.

Since we’re talking the GOP and immigration politics, here’s another juicy poll out today. Beltway Republicans have warned border hawks forever that they should emulate Texas Republicans on this issue; both Dubya and Rick Perry have had fabulous electoral success in the state by taking a milder view of immigration reform than the conservative base. If you want to turn the electoral tide nationally among Latino voters, the Texas model is the one to follow.

I note that we ignore all of the other GOP policies in TX when making this argument. If we are truly to follow TX in order to woo Latino voters, shouldn’t we emulate TX on tax policy, spending policy, education policy, etc.?

Or, are Latinos consider single-issue voters – that we believe they’ll vote for the party that gives them a good enough amnesty and then ignore every other policy each party puts forth?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Latino voting in Texas has little do do with immigration (considering state’s generally don’t set immigration policy or enforce immigration policy) and more to do with unique circumstances in TX. But, of course, we’ll endlessly hear how the GOP does so great in TX but not nationwide and therefore need to pass amnesty.

But, in reality, when do we stop thinking about what is good/bad for the party and instead think about what is good for the Country? I don’t for one minute believe that amnesty will help the GOP with Latino voters. But even if I did, I’d still oppose amnesty as being very bad for the U.S.

In a perfect world, millions of doctors, scientists, engineers etc would be crossing the border in droves. Instead we have uneducated Mexicans looking to bring their entire extended families to get free healthcare, housing, food so they could vote for the dems.